Chew Eng Han v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Motion for Question of Law of Public Interest

Chew Eng Han applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore for leave to refer questions of law of public interest, following a prior rejected application. The court, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, and Quentin Loh J, dismissed the application on September 6, 2017, citing it as an abuse of process and devoid of merit. The court found the application to be a rehash of arguments from the previous application and an attempt to use the criminal reference procedure as a back-door appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Criminal motion by Chew Eng Han for leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication dismissedWon
Christopher Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Joel Chen of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Eugene Sng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Grace Soh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chew Eng HanApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJudge of AppealNo
Quentin LohJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher OngAttorney-General’s Chambers
Joel ChenAttorney-General’s Chambers
Eugene SngAttorney-General’s Chambers
Grace SohAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The applicant filed a second application for leave to refer questions of law of public interest.
  2. The first application (Criminal Motion No 10 of 2017) was rejected by the court on 3 July 2017.
  3. The applicant failed to show any valid reason for granting him an extension of time.
  4. The applicant's question was a rehash of a question posed in CM 10/2017.
  5. The applicant argued that a new precedent had been judicially pronounced, breaching Art 11(1) of the Constitution.
  6. The High Court was unanimous in its decision that the elements of the offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts were satisfied.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chew Eng Han v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 18 of 2017, [2017] SGCA 52

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First application (Criminal Motion No 10 of 2017) rejected by the court
Second application (Criminal Motion No 18 of 2017) dismissed by the court

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found the application to be an abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1259
  2. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court found that the applicant failed to show grounds for granting an extension of time.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 1 SLR 966
  3. Question of Law of Public Interest
    • Outcome: The court found that the application had no prospect of success.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Misappropriation
    • Outcome: The court found that the applicant's submission was based on a clear misreading of the decisions of the courts below.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Criminal Breach of Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that a three-Judge coram of the High Court has given full consideration to whether each of the elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust was satisfied.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 966SingaporeCited for the principles in determining whether an extension of time is appropriate.
Kho Jabing v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1259SingaporeCited for the principle that it is an abuse of process to withdraw an argument and then seek to reintroduce it in a fresh application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Criminal motion
  • Question of law of public interest
  • Abuse of process
  • Extension of time
  • Finality
  • Litigant-in-person
  • Misappropriation
  • Criminal breach of trust
  • Constitution
  • Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal motion
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal
  • Abuse of process
  • Criminal law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure90
Penal Code50
Litigant-in-person40
Public Prosecutor40
Consent of Public Prosecutor40
Prosecutorial Powers40
Civil Procedure30
Constitutionality30
Amendment of Charges20
Breach of Court Order20
Inherent Power of the Court20
Prosecution by Attrition20
Judicial Conduct10
Private Prosecution10
Solicitor's duties10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Constitutional Law